3 ms·
"But Smith was wrong. Every successful economy, without exception, has prospered by subsidizing key industries and protecting them from foreign competition. And
by shiny 16y ago
"But Smith was wrong. Every successful economy, without exception, has prospered by subsidizing key industries and protecting them from foreign competition. And nearly without exception, every developed society has then, with consummate hypocrisy, preached free trade to less-developed countries."
Comeon, really? That no country has practiced complete free-trade means Smith was wrong about free-trade?
- gruseom 16y agoThat no country has practiced complete free-trade means Smith was wrong about free-trade? Scialabba is saying Smith was wrong to argue that protectionism would never be a net economic benefit because richer countries have in fact been more protectionist than poorer ones. Admittedly this doesn't follow strictly logically, but that's a technical point. More interesting is whether the claim about rich vs. poor countries is true. If it is, it's significant. Has anyone here read Ha-Joon Chang?
- eru 16y agoAs a counter-anecdote: India only started getting rich, when they dropped the protectionism somewhat. Perhaps rich countries can get away with more protectionism than poorer ones, and they are rich despite it, not because?